By order 25 rule (1)
“The Court may grant an Injunction by an interlocutory Order in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so and the order may be made either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the Court considers just.”
In the case of AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. V. ETHICON LTD. (1975) 1 ALL ER 504 AT 509 per Lord Diplock HL he stated “The object of the Interlocutory Injunction is to protect the Plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial, but the Plaintiff’s need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the Defendant to be protected against injury resulting from having been prevented from exercising his legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated under the Plaintiff’s undertaking in damages if the uncertainty were resolved in the Defendant’s favour at the trial. The Court must weight one need against the other and determine where the balance of convenience lies”
The parties involved in the case are the Registered Trustees of Methapoly Church International previously known as Musama Church International and the Registered Trustees of Musama Disco Christo Church.
a) They are the same church with one breaking away fighting for a parcel of land lying and being at South Odorkor.
b) A declaration confirming the resolution passed by members of the Odorkor branch of the Defendant Church to join the Plaintiff Church is lawful and same should not be disturbed.
c) A declaration that the Odorkor Temple and adjoining structures built on the land described above as the property of the Plaintiff.
d) An order of possession.
e) Damages for trespass.
f) And perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant its assigns, agents, workmen or any other person claiming title through the Defendant from dealing with the land in any other manner.
The ground upon which the Court will grant an application for Interlocutory Injunction was espoused in the cases of WELFORD QUARCOO V. AG & ANOR (2012) 1 SCGLR 259, VANDERPUYE V. NARTEY (1977) 1 GLR 428, ODONKOR & ORS V. AMARTEI (1987-88) 1 GLR as follows:-
a) That the applicant must establish that there is a serious question to be determined.
b) That the applicant risk suffering irreparable damage incapable of being remedied by way of damages.
c) That on the balance of convenience it